Journal of Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization Volume 10 Number 1 Article 4 2017 Making Culture Relevant in Technical Translation With Dynamic Equivalence: The Case of Bilingual Instructions Massimo Verzella Penn State Behrand Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/rpcg Part of the Rhetoric Commons Recommended Citation Verzella, Massimo (2017) "Making Culture Relevant in Technical Translation With Dynamic Equivalence: The Case of Bilingual Instructions," Journal of Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization: Vol. 10 : No. 1, Article 4. Available at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/rpcg/vol10/iss1/4 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321371273 Making Culture Relevant in Technical Translation with Dynamic Equivalence: The Case of Bilingual Instructions Article · November 2017 CITATIONS READS 2 170 1 author: Massimo Verzella Penn State University, the Behrend College 29 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Cross-cultural pragmatics: Italian and American English: A Comparative Study View project Discourse analysis (focus on Samuel Butler) View project All content following this page was uploaded by Massimo Verzella on 29 November 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. ISSN: 2153-9480. Volume 10, Number 1. October - 2017 Making culture relevant in technical translation with dynamic equivalence: The case of bilingual instructions Massimo Verzella Penn State Behrend Introduction: Translators as beta users and mediators One of the central tenets of technical communication research and pedagogy is user-analysis (Redish, 2010; Barnum & Redish, 2011). Technical documents conceived to be used by individuals from different backgrounds should be the product of cycles of negotiations between authors and audiences. Similarly, the idea of participatory design (Ehn, 1993; Courage & Baxter, 2005; Simonsen & Robertson, 2012) revolves around a rhetoric of collaboration and shared- authoring that involves users at all stages of product or content development. User-centered and user-participatory approaches emphasize the importance of user feedback to identify not only problems, but also possibilities that writers and designers might fail to consider. Sauer’s (1998) influential research on risk communication in the mining industry offers strong arguments in support of the idea that technical instructions and safety documentation should be developed with the help of target audiences. Knowledge on risk reduction often originates with experienced miners, hence the need to involve them in the development of safety regulations. Hart-Davidson (2013) cites Sauer’s work to point out that technical communicators should aim to become users’ advocates by using the information gathered by audience analysis to grant not only the usability but also the usefulness of documentation. A key professional figure who can help technical writers protect users’ needs is the translator. Translators can be seen as users who are also producers of meaning, and translation an act of mediation enacted through the negotiation of meaning making. Importantly, translators can help development teams understand what type of cultural differences are relevant for user experience design (a crucial point identified by Quesenbery & Szuc, 2012), how much language matters in design, and what adjustments are necessary to prepare digital products and documentation for localization. In a compelling study on workplace safety and communication risk, Evia and Patriarca (2012) show how most official documentation created for Latino construction workers follows the ‘transmission view’ of communication, in which technical communicators act simply Verzella: Making culture relevant in technical translation with dynamic equivalence as unobtrusive vehicles for the message that subject-matter experts send to audiences. This way of understanding the role of technical communicators mirrors the commonplace idea of translators as invisible middlemen who work alone and whose role is to faithfully transfer meaning across languages. First, we cannot accept the idea of professional translators as working alone: Translators are always involved in collaborative networks that bring together document initiators, authors, translation initiators, target audiences, and other translators (whose help can now be sought through several internet platforms such as Proz.com) in a process of negotiation that transforms the source texts (ST) into a usable and useful target texts (TT). Secondly, the myth of the docile and subservient translator has been deconstructed by several influential studies (see, e.g., Venuti, 1995; Venuti, 1998) that offered strong arguments for a reconceptualization of translating work as a way of creatively mediate between cultures, languages, and rhetorical traditions. Technical translators are equally creative when they manipulate STs to achieve dynamic equivalence in target TTs. The concept of dynamic equivalence was first put forward by Nida (1964) to distinguish this goal of translation from the goal of achieving formal equivalence, which makes translators place more attention on the message itself, in both form and content. In contrast, dynamic equivalence is an approach to translation in which the ST is translated thought for thought rather than word for word. In other words, dynamic equivalence is a form of equivalence in which the focus of attention is directed toward the receptor response, rather than the ST. Whenever a technical document is created to solve a problem that users from diverse cultural backgrounds might encounter, translators have the responsibility to act as brokers in the exchange of information. Their goal is to ensure that the relationship between target audience and message is substantially the same as that which existed between the original target audiences and the message. For this reason, project managers and technical writers should not request the services of translators a posteriori, once the writing process is concluded, but rather in itinere, i.e. at key stages of the creative process. This move would allow writers to understand whether or not the documents that they are creating can be localized in a reasonable amount of time and with reasonable costs. While it is true that writers can adopt complex sets of strategies (Maylath 1997, 2002) or style guides (Kohl, 2008) to make their documentation translation-ready, nothing can replace the input of translators when the goal is to obtain detailed feedback on the clarity of the original document. For example, even the most experienced technical writers, especially when they use their native language, will have a hard time identifying and expunging idioms from their drafts. Research in the field of linguistics (Bolinger 1976; Pawley and Syder 1983; Sinclair, 1991; Wray, 2002) shows that people tend to use prefabricated structures when they speak and write in their native language. Both spoken utterances and written texts are largely composed of multi-word expressions that constitute single choices in the mental lexicon of a person. While the use of prefabricated and memorized structures speeds up communication between people and groups who have access to the shared reservoir of concepts and cultural ideas that lend meaning to these structures, no common knowledge can be assumed in many instances of international technical communication. In these situations, technical communicators should make a conscious effort to use less memorized expressions and more phrases constructed bottom-up to imitate the non- 55 native speakers’ tendency to construct sentences more analytically (Erman & Warren, 2000). Page Page Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization October 2017, Volume 10, Number 1, 54-77. Verzella: Making culture relevant in technical translation with dynamic equivalence However, it can be extremely difficult for technical writers, especially monoglots, to predict what kind of expressions and prefabricated chunks are likely to cause trouble to non-native speakers and reword these formulaic expressions from the ground up; hence the need to establish sound forms of collaboration with translators who are better trained to identify confusing idioms and formulaic expressions in the ST. Moving from linguistic to rhetorical considerations, what makes international technical communication particularly challenging is the fact that rhetorical expectations shift across social groups and cultural traditions. In a study developed to identify audience preferences for the organizational structure of user manuals, Ulijin (1996) found that readers judge documents written in languages other than their native language employing criteria familiar to them. In other words, they look for familiar rhetorical patterns in documents written in unfamiliar languages. A similar study, Thatcher’s (1999) comparative analysis on communication patterns preferred by U.S. and South American personnel within a multinational organization, shows that when it comes to document structure and paragraphing, South American audiences tend to favor narrative and drama-like structures over direct, hierarchical, and analytical structures. Another